Watching Hull vs Wigan - I am sure on two occasions that Hull have only put 5 players (once with the feed, once against) into their scrum... hmm. Is this how much of a farce our scrums have descended into in that we cannot be bothered to either put six men into the scrum or even officiate and notice the numbers in there?

Is that before or after they had a man sent off?

After.

I have made a mistake if the rule allows them to have one less at the scrum and mods, feel free to delete this ill advised, erm, topic.

Yeah they definitely can opt to not have a man in. I only noticed it this season when Amor was sent off on good friday.

If you are going to criticise the referees for something, I find it helps if you take the time to make sure you have a clue what you're talking about first.

It's been a rule for as long as I can remember. Surprised that was the first time you noticed.

Correct you are, and I put it down to the astounding discipline of modern-day players in that it is a scenario I rarely come across.

What alerted me to it was interestingly enough, the Wigan players clearly badgering the referee for saying that they were one short in the scrum. I shall take solace in that I wasn't alone in thinking it looked odd - again, I accept I was completely wrong.

More often than not teams will go 1 short at the scrum when they're a man down in order to preserve their defensive line.

I'd like to see clubs play against this more by using the scrum against the team with fewer players in it. Keep the ball in the scrum and push the scrum backward to gain ground.

Though this would require a change in the rules to allow the ball to be kept at the back of the scrum by the loose forward. But I think it may be a positive change and allow the scrum to be used more in general.

The laws relating to scrums refer to the maximum number of 'backs' (ie the number of players that are NOT in the scrum) that are allowed when there is a scrum. The maximum number of backs is 7. So if you only have 12 men on the field for example you only need 5 in the scrum leaving the said max of 7 backs.

Fair enough.

Pretty sure it was every scrum though, not just the one or two you mentioned.

In fact someone with a more intimate knowledge of the rules than me might be able to correct me, but I don't think it's even optional. I think you have to take one out of the scrum if you're a man down. Or maybe I've just made that up, but there's something at the back of my mind anyway.

Quite an ironic post given your criticism of No36

Not really. My criticism was about their rant about the state of the game and the referees based on something they had got wrong, not their knowledge of the rules. If they had come on and asked why Hull only had 5 in the scrum then I would have just answered politely.

Anyway, you didn't answer my query?

I think that may be where I am getting confused. I am thinking you need to have 7 backs, but from looking at the rules I see you can have less if you want to, although no team ever would.

If it's your put in near their line, why not put 8 or even 10 in the scrum and push them back 10 or 15 yards and score?

Because you can only ever have a max of 6 in a scrum. I mean that if a team is down a man they would never opt to put 6 in the scrum and leave the back line short.

Because I like you didn't know the rules until looking them up as confirmed by your discussion with Cross Hills Cougar...you know the 'ironic' bit.

This is compounded by the statement that you would have answered them politely if the poster hadn't had a rant....did you miss their apology not that one was needed? Anyway answered them how exactly as you appear to be getting to grips with the rule yourself post telling off?

I acknowledged their apology. I would have answered that you don't need 6 men in the scrum if you are down a man, whether or not it is optional doesn't really matter does it. I might not have been 100% on the rule, but I aren't the one criticising the referees over something I don't understand. Which was kind of the point of my post.

I'm just sick of people criticising anything and everything they can about the sport, so someone coming on having a rant about "what have our scrums come to" when they are the only ones to have made a mistake just provoked a response from me. But they admitted they were wrong so that's fine.

[iDepleted pack 3. The 3-2-1 formation is compulsory if six forwards pack down. If injuries deplete the team, the back three forwards may be withdrawn to give 3-2-0, 3-1-0 or 3-0-0 formations (subject to there being no more than seven backs – see para 3 above). There should always be at least three forwards packing down.[/i
So the rule talks about injuries depleting the team and not sendings off. The seven backs aspect of the rule prevents teams depleting the scrum in normal circumstances. It makes sense to deplete the scrum when players are sent off but that is not what the rule says.

I thought the rule was you have to pack down a full 6, the penalty of having a man sent off is losing one in open field, incl at scrums. The only reason not to as alluded to above is for injury. If as a team of 12 you pack down to get the clock stopped, you can't do that with only 5 players.
Possibly just overlooked as was much else by the officials.

Wrong. They have the choice whether to have one less at the scrum or the line. Teams often have the full scrum in attack to allow the loose forward pick-up and counter the push, but a depleted scrum in defence so the back line isn't short.

What's with the aggressive response.


However do show me the law that states that is so. or is it just an interpretation?

I think that statement sums up one of the current issues within the game. A lot of laws are ignored or changed depending on the current interpretation. Quotes from the rule book are largely irrelevant as it's the RFL and referees interpretation that matters.

Not sure where you have got aggression from there. I corrected your (arrogant) assumption that the officials just don't care/realise something so basic, and furthermore explained how teams tend to work with it. I've no idea whether it's a law or an interpretation, but it's been the way the game has been played at all levels at least in the 16 years I've been involved, so it's not like anything has changed, or that it's really causing any problems as far as I can tell.

The next paragraph to the one mentioned above in the rules state...

[iForward withdrawing 3. A forward may detach himself from the scrum at any time provided there are not already seven players acting as backs on his team.[/i

...which would mean that a scrum needs to be formed with a full complement of 6 forwards, but that up to 3 of these can detach and join the backs before the ball is put-in (if there are less than 7 backs due to injuries or dismissals).

An "interpretation" of this might be for refs to ignore the need to form the scrum with all 6 players in the interests of keeping the game moving? In much the same way that the requirement to exercise the put-in correctly is ignored - [iThe ball shall be put into the scrum from the Referee’s side by holding it in a horizontal position with a point in each hand and rolling it along the ground into the tunnel formed by the opposing front row forwards.[/i This is still in the current rules!